4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Evaluation of adverse effects of long-term oral administration of carprofen, etodolac, flunixin meglumine, ketoprofen, and meloxicam in dogs

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY RESEARCH
卷 68, 期 3, 页码 258-264

出版社

AMER VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.2460/ajvr.68.3.258

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective-To evaluate adverse effects of long-term oral administration of carprofen, etodolac, flunixin meglumine, ketoprofen, and meloxicam in dogs. Animals-36 adult dogs. Procedures-Values for CBC, urinalysis, serum biochemical urinalyses, and occult blood in feces were investigated before and 7, 30, 60, and 90 days after daily oral administration (n = 6 dogs/group) of lactose (1 mg/kg, control treatment), etodolac (15 mg/kg), meloxicam (0.1 mg/kg), carprofen (4 mg/kg), and ketoprofen (2 mg/kg for 4 days, followed by 1 mg/kg daily thereafter) or flunixin (1 mg/kg for 3 days, with 4-day intervals). Gastroscopy was performed before and after the end of treatment. Results-For serum gamma-glutamyltransferase activity, values were significantly increased at day 30 in dogs treated with lactose, etodolac, and meloxicam within groups. Bleeding time was significantly increased in dogs treated with carprofen at 30 and 90 days, compared with baseline. At 7 days, bleeding time was significantly longer in dogs treated with meloxicam, ketoprofen, and flunixin, compared with control dogs. Clotting time increased significantly in all groups except those treated with etodolac. At day 90, clotting time was significantly shorter in flunixin-treated dogs, compared with lactose-treated dogs. Gastric lesions were detected in all dogs treated with etodolac, ketoprofen, and flunixin, and I of 6 treated with carprofen. Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-Carprofen induced the lowest frequency of gastrointestinal adverse effects, followed by meloxicam. Monitoring for adverse effects should be considered when nonsteroical anti-inflammatory drugs are used to treat dogs with chronic pain.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据